Second Examination for Discovery Denied in ICBC Injury Case

Typically a party to an action is entitled to an examination for discovery of the opposing party by virtue of the rules of court. This allows the party to get to know the other side’s case and to assess the opposing party. The new Supreme Court Civil Rules took effect as of 1 July 2010. The new Rules added some new language to the old rule concerning examinations, including a rule limiting all examinations for discovery of a party to seven hours. This provision was recently considered by the Court in the case of Humphrey v. McDonald, 2011 BCSC 1288. In that case, ICBC’s lawyer argued that the proper interpretation of the new rule allowed “at least two examinations for discovery”. Madam Justice Gray disagreed and held as follows:

[10] In my view, the sub-rule advanced does not suggest that there should be more than one examination for discovery of a party. A party should be able to know whether they are finished with examinations for discovery or whether more are pending.